Are these comparable to a Tate?

[sspsandy]

There are a number of Fosgate processors that show up for more reasonable prices than Tates. Here are two examples:
cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI...1950824028
cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI...3000101533
The Fosgate Gavotte 360 Space Matrix was 5 discrete channels, not mono surrounds. I suspect that the same is true of these units, which means you could have Tate quality surround for a fraction of the price.

 

[AllAroundSurround]

I don't no much about either , but the Quadfather1 may have one of these,and may jump in and reply!
No mention of SQ decoders on either one so, look into it further and check back here for any info that may show up!
Rob0]

 

[Obbop]

FOSGATE 360

Owned that one for awhile. Never could understand why it functioned the way it did.

Tried it with music only first. Used a stereo source then fed the output into a quad receiver. Used with and without the decoder in my receiver. Without the decoder wasn't impressed with the synthesizing results. With the decoder activated the output was weird sounding and didn't care for it at all.

Didn't try any quad encoded source material since my main desire is for units that synthesize.

Then I tried it hooked up to my VHS player and feeding into a quad amp. No center channel since space is lacking and I am not big into home theater. The synthesized effects from the VHS movies I played were much different from what resulted with a audio CD source. A noticeable surround effect was there and added to the enjoyment of the movie.

When I bought my Sony SQA-2030 I preferred the way its RM mode synthesized my VHS output so used it and sold the 360.

I can't explain the obvious audio output differences between audio CDs and a VHS source. Doesn't make sense to me but the difference was very noticeable.

If you can buy it cheap.... it may be worth grabbing so you can experiment, your results may be different from mine due to equipment differences. Perhaps if I had a center channel hooked up it would have been a better unit for theater.

However, on the whole, I would much rather have a Vario-Matrix decoder.

 

[sqdave1975]

I found this old post on the Yahoo! list which hopefully will answer your questions about the Fosgate 360° Space Matrix Processors..................


"Hey Tab! Yep.....they're all related!
Let's start with the basics. The top-end decoders when
in their "synthesizer" modes all shift any out of
phase information from the Left Front to the Left Rear
channel (and Right Front to Right Rear). Additionally,
they all shift any "Hard Left" signal to the Left Rear
(and Hard Right to Right Rear). This is true of the
TATE II in "Surround" mode, and in "Cinema" mode but
with the emphasis left in the front channels (Rear
channels down a few db). This is also true of the Fosgate
3601 through 3610 WHEN they are in the "stereo"
surround channel mode. The circuits in the Fosgate are the
same as in the TATE. Now to the QS Vario-Matrix (as
seen in the 7001/8001/9001 receivers and the QSD-1,
QSD-2, QSD-4, QSD-1000 decoders)when set to their
"surround" mode...they do exactly the same thing. What is
different is that the TATE/Fosgate units use their DES -
logic circuits, and the Sansui units use their
Vario-Matrix circuits. The results are virtually
identical....except...you can still get the "hard edge"/sometimes
pumping/drifting from the TATE/Fosgate circuits.....which you'll
never see from the Vario-Matrix circuits....which don't
"drift" like the TATE/Fosgate. The Sansui circuit is
smoother......The TATE/Fosgate a little more discrete. I've had the
Fosgate 3601 and 3610 myself and thought that they were
as discrete as the TATE II in Surround mode...with a
higher quality soundfield due to better components.
Circle Surround is a simple re-hash of the SQ full logic
algorithm....due to the original Patents expiring. As to
playing QS encoded material through the TATE/Fosgate
units....you'll still hit the basic Right Channel differences in
the SQ algorithm vs. the QS algorithm.....BUT in the
synthesizer modes of any of them....the results would be the
same! "Quad" Bob"

 

[sspsandy]

It seems like these units would work better than most of the quad decoders out there, although no SQ mode, DPL instead. The Fosgate RFQ5000 DPL unit in my car gives nice discrete surround with SQ encoded source material, and synthesizes quad from stereo, although it is different from the way the Tate does it in SQ. What you would want to do is to run your turntable, CD player, etc. into the inputs on your quad amp, run jacks from the rec. out on your tape monitor to the 2 channel inputs on the processor, run the front and back l&r outputs from the processor into the mon. inputs (play) and run the center channel and subwoofer outs into a separate 2 channel amp. This is how I run my DVD audio 5.1 setup, except I am running the center channel into a quad amp through the decoder so I can have 2 speakers with a matrix effect on them (I plan to do the same with the subwoofer). I have noticed that the Tate in SQ mode steers the sound around a little while synthesizing quad on certain stereo lps, I fixed it by running it through the quad amp's AFD circuit (a Technics SA 6700X the 8000x's have it too) which allows you to get a more QS like blend on the sound.

 

[Marcsten]

Mayby I am missing something here. Didn't Dolby buy SQ from CBS? I thought they used all the same SQ formulas, but moved one rear channel to the middle front, then made the other rear channel mono across two rear speakers. I this is true, then can't a good Pro Logic decoder be used to do SQ? Just route the center front channel to the back and use one of the back channels as the other back? I don't have a separate pro logic decoder so I don't know if this works, but it seem to me that they would be alot cheaper to find than a tate. What's the story?
Marc

 

[Cai Campbell]

Marc, it's a little more involved than that. I believe that Dolby ProLogic is based on SQ but it does not follow the same formula (speaker repositioning aside). I've had miserable luck trying to decode SQ via ProLogic. This was actually my first foray into "quad".

 

[timbre4]

I believe the expression is "apples & oranges". The latter day surround gear is not meant for an SQ decoding experience.

My lawnmower and chainsaw are pretty similar too, but I'd never interchange the two. This is working at cross purposes.

timbre4

 

[sqdave1975]

I've looked into the possibility of converting a Pro-Logic decoder into an SQ decoder in great detail and have come to the conclusion that it is pretty much impossible.
Most Pro-Logic decoders have a "one chip" solution, like Analog Device's SSM-2125 chip.

(For those who are interested there is a .pdf file <a href="http://www.analog.com/productSelection/pdf/ssm2125_.pdf" target="top">here</a>)

This contains the basic matrix decoder and the adaptive matrix, rather like the tate and Sansui Variomatrix. The problem is that darned basic matrix decoder circuit. It was re-jigged by Dolby, particularly the center channel which is derived from sum of the left total and right total.
Now, if it were possible to dissect the chip and remove that nasty Dolby matrix decoder circuit, leaving that nice 35db separation apdaptive matrix circuit, things might be looking up. Sadly I don't have a steady enough hand for that kind of micro-surgery!
In the case of SSM-2125, the rear channel audio delay circuit, the 7Khz Low-pass filter and the Dolby B noise reduction circuit are all external to the chip and can be sucessfully by-passed.
In the 3601 Space Matrix, Fosgate encased their patented circuits in large square modules filled with black resin, effectively sealing away those secrets forever. Anyone got a Fosgate 3601 schematic diagram???!?!?

 

[QUADradial]

Most of the Fosgate decoders of that time period come closer to DPLII than SQ. SQ is a strange animal in the matrix world and nothing but an SQ decoder will decode it properly. I've tried several Fosgate decoders and they all sound about the same to me in that Panorama mode... Works well for QS, though.

Tab

 

[Marcsten]

I knew there must be some reason it wouldn't work. I love my Composer and I guess the mystique of the Tate wouldn't be what it is if any Pro Logic decoder was basically the same. I like the chain saw lawn mower comment. I'm glad to see you guys tried it!
Marc

 

[Scottmoose]

Anyone else wonder why they even bothered re-jigging it? If you want a centre speaker that produces even the sum of the left / right stereo difference, just wire another speaker into your setup, attaching it's terminals to the two positive outputs on your amp. It's not worth the effort when you're only producing the sum difference -it just sucks everything into the centre speaker and wrecks the soundstaging. Go figure. Talk about walking briskly backwards into the future wearing blinkers.
Now if you stuck that speaker behind you, you'd have a basic Hafler setup which isn't too bad for reproducing ambiant music -Brian Eno was an advocate of this in the early 1980's I believe. But it ain't exactly up to quad -which is what they started out with in the first place before they started fiddling. 8o

 

[Cai Campbell]

It's interesting that you should mention Brian Eno. It is because of him that I first became interested in any type of surround sound. On the back of one of his records (I forget which one) he had a wiring diagram for hooking up a single rear speaker to a regular stereo system. The diagram mentioned that for best results you should employ a digital delay. Being the starving student that I was at the time, I scoured the pawn shops in hopes of finding a cheap digital delay. I never did find one that I could afford, so I abandoned that idea. I wonder how many Tates I overlooked during that time...

 

[Marcsten]

IN the late '70s or early '80s, I recall a couple of digital delay systems. The first was a 'bucket brigade' and was adjusted from a row of buttons on the top that looked like a large version of a period cable box. I think there were about 20 or so buttons. It was a true delay only with no reverb or other hall type effect, and was not very satisfactory. Another model came from the same company who's name escapes me now, that was much better in that the delay effect was more subtle and added a reverb type effect to it. I was loaned these items by the salesman as he knew I was a surround junkie in the hopes I would buy one and convert others. They were really expensive at the time, about the same as a Composer as I recall, and I knew which one I wanted. While they were on loan, I made a couple of Q8 tapes by patching the outputs into my Akai Cr80dss. I think I have one of them still; it would have been from the later model as I was not impressed enough with the earlier model to keep the tape. Anyone recall the name of this company? I want to say Audio Dynamics or something like that.
Marc

 

[AllAroundSurround]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>On the back of one of his records (I forget which one) he had a wiring diagram for hooking up a single rear speaker to a regular stereo system. The diagram mentioned that for best results you should employ a digital delay.[/quote]

I have that album and remember the diagram but don't know what album it was from either, have to look and sse if I can find it! It had to do with phase and such, correct?
Rob0]

 

[timbre4]

Another Brian Eno angle

Hands down, the most played CD I own is his 1986 album -Thursday Afternoon. It is possibly the most versatile music ever devised. It's equally great for reading, relaxing, working, studying and many other, uh, activities.

I never did get the Thursday Afternoon companion VHS tape which was to be viewed with the TV on its' side as you laid down to watch! That needs to be on DVD!

FYI - Digital versions of his Oblique Strategies cards are all over the internet, haven't jumped on that yet...

Timbre4

 

[Scottmoose]

Err, the album was 'On Land', though the diagram only appeared on early pressings. You can read his original cover notes on this 3 speaker setup here:
music.hyperreal.org/artis...d-txt.html
I was actually using this up until v. recently. And my cheap old garage mini-system is still wired this way. Well, I like it. Cheers for now
Scott.